Dear Is Mise,

The problem is deciding who should and should not
own guns. Even "good" people can become enraged, drunk,
take drugs, become unemployed, et cetera and easy access
to a gun can escalate a mere drunken brawl to a murder
spree.

Imagine what would happen if peaceful protesters carried
guns when police stormed.

Fire-arms after all are weapons. They are tools. In the
United States - self defence is regarded as a fundamental
right - however it should also be a responsibility.
We have local, state and federal law enforcement. We have
our military. Surely
this should be the primary means by which we seek protection.
We don't need weapons for home defence or protection.

As a society we need to focus on
the individual and what drives gun crime. Often times it is
the lack of education, the use of drugs, as a result of
unemployment, broken families and people living in poverty.
If we learn to help those that need it the most we just may
eliminate a huge portion of gun related crime. It is the
job of governments within society to see improvement on this
front.

People that question gun laws? I don't for one moment
believe or imagine that they are crazy, sky-shooting
cowboys.

The responsibility lies on society as a whole as well as
individual gun owners. Society needs to put out strong
restrictions on gun ownership. Thinking logically, there are
weapons that the risk of harm far outweighs anyone's rights
to own them. Assault rifles, guns with high capacity magazines,
machine guns, are just some worth mentioning. These are all
weapons of war and the military should be the sole owners of
these.

It is not impinging on anyone's rights to say, "NO, these are
not okay to be in our neighbourhoods."

Part of the reason my husband and I chose to return to Australia
after having worked and lived in the US for over ten years
was the fact that we wanted a healthy environment for our
children to grow up in.

contd..

As for the article you [Foxy by name and by character it appears] rudely insisted that I respond to, that highly expensive and wasteful to police resources White Elephant gun registration the authors referred to - which has been discontinued in other countries because it was found to be ineffective - has never been found to have prevented a crime in Australia and nor has it led to a conviction in the case of a crime.

However it has gathered into a database the personal particulars and homes addresses and contact details of thousands of ordinary law-abiding citizens and presents a high risk to their and their families' safety. Organised crime, the drug-trafficking outlaw bikies for example, have been alleged to have gained useful contacts within the police departments.

Daily we are informed of breaches of security of citizens' details held on government databanks, including Social Security and Taxation Department. Where the useless, White Elephant' gun registry is concerned, if 'gun control' itself is to be believed and owners are targets of criminals, the thousands on the registry should be living in fear of home invasion by determined criminals or terrorists who have bought the information.

Using the Google you are so fond of, although unlike you I do read links before I post them, there is deep concern among licensed that criminals could use gun registry details as a shopping list. It is a reasonable concern. Then there are persistent errors in data held, Errors that are reasonable in a way because trained police have better things to do than look over the shoulders of the licensed and law-abiding citizen. Police went into the job to collar criminals not to be bothersome to the respectable citizens they depend on for support and intel. Now, what about you dispel that?

http://www.lafo.com.au/queensland-firearms-registry-can-keep-firearms-records-secure/

leoj,

I have now come to the conclusion that
if you don't like me but still watch and comment
on everything I say.
Leoj,
you are a fan!

Foxy,

"Imagine what would happen if peaceful protesters carried
guns when police stormed."

I imagine that the peaceful protesters who were stormed by the police would protect themselves, after all as the police are acting illegally then their actions are criminal.

Assault rifles, large capacity magazines and machine guns are illegal in Australia so there is no need to bring them up, unless you are referring to their possession by criminals, who have little difficulty in getting them.

"Imagine what would happen if peaceful protesters carried
guns when police stormed."

Hysteria. Forum baiting.

The debate is about evidence-based laws versus billionaire Soros' invention of 'gun control'.

Any reasonable, civic-minded person would be in favour of evidence based laws. That is where effectiveness and efficiency is to be found, along with the protection of the public and individual rights.

The creature that is 'gun control' is not about criminals and illegal guns at all.
It is poorly targeted at wasting police resources on looking over the shoulders of and even badgering the ordinary citizens with licenses, the very people who can be expected to uphold laws and have demonstrated that through their clean police record and character references. 'Gun control' sets out to drive a wedge of distrust between police and ordinary law-abiding citizens.

However the 'gun control' meme is very useful to its backer, his mates and the politicians who benefit from his donations, the billionaire currency dealing billionaire Soros, who is credited with very nearly sending the Bank of England broke, losing the savings of thousands of small depositors.

As might only be expected where sly political activism and overseas interference in domestic politics is concerned, 'gun control' has always been and remains, highly secretive about its hidden backers, membership, political links and so on. In fact it refuses to give any of that very basic due diligence information that any business, charity or political lobbyist gives as a matter of course.

No-one has presented any case against evidence based laws.

Dear Is Mise,

Once again I shall repeat what I stated earlier -

There is a huge body of evidence on gun violence
not only in our own society but in the US - and
homicides in the US have been on the rise since
the start of 2015 - largely driven by street
violence in Chicago, Baltimore and the Nation's
capital. As President Trump stated "African
American communities are absolutely in the worst
shape they've ever been" And, "Inner city crime is
reaching record levels."

Of course as we know emotive and controversial
discussions easily ignite the worst part of so
many people. Whether it is descent into name-calling,
insults, ad hominems and similar lazy, childish
tactics, or a dismissal of anyone other than those on
"their" side, attempts at objectivity are often scarce.

However, again, as stated earlier, this is a complex
topic and we ought not to dismiss arguments because they
do not square with our gut feelings - regardless of whether
we want more or less guns, more or less laws.

A debate and discussion must be had, since discussion can
help us in achieving the goal we all want. A world with
less violence or, more realistically one where fewer
innocent people die.

We have to figure out if guns aid or hinder that goal.
And having a proper discussion, not a mud-slinging contest,
will or should help towards that end regardless of which
"side" we are on.

I'll try to find even more links (no matter who they're
by). I tend to lean towards credible links for the
information they contain and the evidence they provide.
The studies that have been done that clearly back up
what's being argued.

See you soon.